Windows 8 discussion (8.1 Update coming April 8)

By the way, how many corporate desktops do you think are allowed to send usage data back to MS? It's one of the first things they usually turn off when they create a standard install.

I've actually asked that question about SQM (and it's clearly something that gets asked a lot), and the answer is twofold:

1) In actuality, the number of opt outs is surprisingly low.2) The SQM guys have actually gone to many companies that MS has close contacts with (which is actually a huge number of companies) to run internal SQM trials just to measure if there were any statistically significant deviations.

These companies allowed the team to do this, as long as the data collected was only analyzed locally and was not retained. There was no statistical difference in data found at these businesses versus the data MS does collect from machines classified to be in a business (which uses a variety of metrics like 'is this connected to a domain', etc. to make that determination).

Of course, they do see different metrics for business sqm users over home sqm users. But it does not appear as if there is any statistical difference between business users that do submit SQM (of which there are literally trillions (ir not more) data points), and those that don't.

I did find all of this fascinating as i also thought 'well certainly, the opt outs would skew the results!'

FoldersMany of us have screens on our iPhones that are filled entirely with folders. So for us the news that iOS 7’s folders will themselves support multiple pages is music to our ears. Finally, we’ll no longer have to maintain separate Games 2 folders to handle the overflow when our original Games folders run out of space. We’ll no longer have to decide to drop utilities into a miscellaneous Web folder because they can’t fit into Utilities. iOS 7’s folders are bigger on the inside, and that’s just fine by us.

The news that iOS 7’s folders will themselves support multiple pages is music to our ears.

Given that a page on a phone screen (iOS or Android, doesn't matter) is roughly equivalent to a Win7 SS "group", the former have always supported one additional level (folders within pages/groups) whereas Win7 doesn't even allow that. Now Apple thinks there is need to support... gasp... folders within folders! On a phone! Can it be that phone users are more "power users" than Windows users? Or is it just that Microsoft is telling us "outliers" we can go pound sand... yet again?

Yeah... iOS 7 folders still can't nest (can't have folders in folders). All Apple did was remove the hard limit of 12 items in a folder (which is something that Win8 has never had; groups can be of any size).

Yeah... iOS 7 folders still can't nest (can't have folders in folders). All Apple did was remove the hard limit of 12 items in a folder (which is something that Win8 has never had; groups can be of any size).

Oh... did not "get" that. Sorry.

Still, iOS allows actual folders within each page. Why Microsoft chose to disallow this completely logical and obvious tool for Start Screen organization is completely beyond me. A very large number of apps, when installed in Win7 or earlier, create a folder for their several shortcuts. Hell, Microsoft's tools like Visual Studio, Office, the Debugging Tools package, the Windows Driver Kits, etc., etc., do this. Why not allow them to continue doing that -- that is, creating folders in the Start Screen -- in Win8?

Literally every Windows release has had the same, tired, rehashing of "my use case got worse, i am alienated". If you haven't realized by now that that's what you get *with every single OS out there*, then you need to write your own OS and use that so you are properly insulated from software developers eventually making a change that doesn't suit you.

I could buy this argument if it was used to support removal of something obscure. But the Start Menu is hardly an obscure feature. It has been a fundamental way a lot of people have started programs on Windows going back sixteen years - all the way back to NT 4.

Forget the argument about how many folders, shortcuts, or levels of folders it supports or should support (though of course I think it's nice that since it's just enumerating a corner of the file system this isn't an issue); what this is really about is use of the Start Menu, period. And Microsoft just told everyone who commonly uses the Start Menu - not just those few of us with 500 shortcuts in 200 folders - that no, we don't care about what you're used to. Learn the new way or go off to Apple or Linux, we don't give a rat's ass how you feel. We don't care, we don't have to - we're Microsoft.

That message, frankly, stings a lot worse than the actual task of retraining myself will.

Agreed, it looks like someone finally opened up Windows Media Player. Or ported this from Xbox One. Either way is good.

I also like how MS has caved on in-app searching without making you open the search charm. Guys, if you're going to bitch about Windows 8 how about actual problems like three clicks to get to search results instead of how much it stings that Microsoft didn't check in with your start menu layout before callously redesigning it?

And Microsoft just told everyone who commonly uses the Start Menu - not just those few of us with 500 shortcuts in 200 folders - that no, we don't care about what you're used to. Learn the new way or go off to Apple or Linux

That's correct. And if you're going to use commercial software, you're going to have to accept that this is par for the course. For example, Apple told a ton of people using Final Cut Pro that they would have to "learn the new way...". Google tells a ton of people they have to "learn the new way..." when they change to a new system and discontinue the old one.

With Linux things may not be that way since the source is all available to you. So i guess you always have a fallback to 'i want to continue using a fork of X if the maintainers of it went a way i didn't want'. (Though, in practice, i think the amount of people who do that is minimal).

Software evolves and moves on. And yes, even features used my most of your userbase are open to being changed or outright removed.

Now Apple thinks there is need to support... gasp... folders within folders! On a phone!

1) They actually don't (at least not with anything they've said publicly).2) Humorously enough they *do* support it (they just don't make it available for the public to use):http://youtu.be/9DP7q9e3K68?t=15s

Presumably, they do are trying to find the right balance between power and complexity with their users. And they likely also know that whatever they decide, they will not please everyone.

And Microsoft just told everyone who commonly uses the Start Menu - not just those few of us with 500 shortcuts in 200 folders - that no, we don't care about what you're used to. Learn the new way or go off to Apple or Linux

That's correct. And if you're going to use commercial software, you're going to have to accept that this is par for the course. For example, Apple told a ton of people using Final Cut Pro that they would have to "learn the new way...". Google tells a ton of people they have to "learn the new way..." when they change to a new system and discontinue the old one.

Software evolves and moves on. And yes, even features used my most of your userbase are open to being changed or outright removed.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. I think what they are arguing is that it is an incredibly stupid move by Microsoft. They are really losing a lot of market share to Apple, specifically with the iPad being the main competition for home users. I know that is why they tried to trojan horse a tablet UI in Windows 8, but now they've gone and pissed off the people who felt they needed the classic Windows interface.

On top of that, they haven't converted too many apple tablet users. We tried a few Surface Pros in a couple of our stores, and people hated it. They said it was too heavy. They hated the interface, and many people had trouble picking up the hidden UI elements.

Tablets are taking over for home use, mostly because people do basically nothing with their computer (emails, web, and game apps). iPads seem to be preferred because they are trendy, and have an ultra simplistic UI. Everything is just a simple grid, with easily readable text and icons. The same goes for most Android devices. Most people do one thing at a time.

So, really, Microsoft is accomplishing nothing thus far. The overall reception has been negative on all fronts. This is the first time in a long time that Microsoft's dominance in the market is really coming under fire. They need to play to their strengths. If they want to get in the tablet game, they need to modify their strategy. The trojan horse thing isn't working.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. I think what they are arguing is that it is an incredibly stupid move by Microsoft. They are really losing a lot of market share to Apple, specifically with the iPad being the main competition for home users. I know that is why they tried to trojan horse a tablet UI in Windows 8, but now they've gone and pissed off the people who felt they needed the classic Windows interface.

On top of that, they haven't converted too many apple tablet users. We tried a few Surface Pros in a couple of our stores, and people hated it. They said it was too heavy. They hated the interface, and many people had trouble picking up the hidden UI elements.

Tablets are taking over for home use, mostly because people do basically nothing with their computer (emails, web, and game apps). iPads seem to be preferred because they are trendy, and have an ultra simplistic UI. Everything is just a simple grid, with easily readable text and icons. The same goes for most Android devices. Most people do one thing at a time.

So, really, Microsoft is accomplishing nothing thus far. The overall reception has been negative on all fronts. This is the first time in a long time that Microsoft's dominance in the market is really coming under fire. They need to play to their strengths. If they want to get in the tablet game, they need to modify their strategy. The trojan horse thing isn't working.

MS had no good choices I think. What were their choices any how? To copy the ipad, with the simple grid layout and non-desktop tablet only software? If people want that, they will just get an ipad, and MS would catch flak for being nothing but a cheap copy-cat, without the wide selection of apps. Nobody would buy that either. I think it's a brilliant move on MS' part to offer the surface pro, where business and maybe home users, can use the software they need in the business world, or that they like, and still have a tablet experience when that is desired. It hasn't caught on just yet, but this is a marathon, not a sprint. This strategy just might pay off, I know it's exactly what I'd want in a tablet if I were buying one. The complaining about the tablet UI on the desktop seems daft to me, it seems to meld almost perfectly so that you can use it either way, or both ways, and not be any worse off. If you just like desktop software, you can pin up to 60 of your favorite desktop apps to the start screen (at my 1650x1080 res), and launch them in 2 clicks. That is a good method in itself, whether you use metro apps or not. Desktop users who complain seem to believe that it must be bad if you can use it with tablet and touch, but that's not some kind of physical law. I use Windows 8 (well 2012 with desktop experience installed) with just a keyboard and mouse and find it more efficient than the start menu of old. The metro apps add value even to a long time desktop user like myself, I pin a few of them like weather, pop sci, mail, etc. and get updates to a potentially vast amount of real time data in one click. Meanwhile, my desktop experience is not dragged down in any way, like you would think if you just read complaints about it.

As someone who values security and system integrity, I love metro apps because they are in a hardened sandbox and strictly controlled in regards to resource usage in the background, they cannot hook into, destroy, corrupt, slow down or infect the system. Even for myself this has benefits, but I can imagine letting a family member use the family PC, and I can point them to the app store, and they can download and try thousands of apps, and I will never have to worry about the system being screwed up. It would be a huge benefit if people leveraged it instead of tripping over themselves to find something to hate about it.

You may see it as a trojan horse, but I don't. I have a Surface and I very much enjoy the fact that Surface (and other similar offerings) encompass both desktop and tablet functionality in a single device. At my desk, connected to a larger monitor and keyboard, I can do all the multi-windowed work that I could do in Win7, and when it's time to go elsewhere I pull two cables and take the Surface with me. It can go virtually anywhere I go, in ways that a laptop couldn't. It works quite well in either tablet or laptop "modes" and eliminates all hassles involved with multiple devices (keeping them charged and synced and so on).

There are a few teething pains, I admit. You say the Surface Pro is too heavy, but I found that to be a first impression which faded rapidly in actual use. And it's a first generation device; it will only get thinner. There have been moments of confusion between the two interfaces (Metro and legacy desktop) but again they fade with familiarity. If you can think of a cleaner and less jarring way to bridge the gap between mouse-friendly and finger-friendly interfaces, then you should definitely start writing your manifesto - if it's truly better then I'm sure you'll be in great demand very quickly!

Certainly opinions differ, and there should be room for that. But these never-ending tirades of hatred are getting old.

As someone who values security and system integrity, I love metro apps because they are in a hardened sandbox and strictly controlled in regards to resource usage in the background, they cannot hook into, destroy, corrupt, slow down or infect the system. Even for myself this has benefits, but I can imagine letting a family member use the family PC, and I can point them to the app store, and they can download and try thousands of apps, and I will never have to worry about the system being screwed up. It would be a huge benefit if people leveraged it instead of tripping over themselves to find something to hate about it.

Absolutely.

I do have one minor gripe about this, though. Unless that family member is given an RT device, it's actually a little too hard to restrict them to only the Modern environment and the Store apps. I did this for my father and it's working well, but the process was a little too technical for a lot of "family support" folks to really bite into.

MS had no good choices I think. What were their choices any how? To copy the ipad, with the simple grid layout and non-desktop tablet only software? If people want that, they will just get an ipad, and MS would catch flak for being nothing but a cheap copy-cat, without the wide selection of apps. Nobody would buy that either. I think it's a brilliant move on MS' part to offer the surface pro, where business and maybe home users, can use the software they need in the business world, or that they like, and still have a tablet experience when that is desired. It hasn't caught on just yet, but this is a marathon, not a sprint. This strategy just might pay off, I know it's exactly what I'd want in a tablet if I were buying one.

Well, its hard to say what would have happened if Microsoft did things differently. So far their tablet market has fallen flat though. Its much harder to gain market share when you are this late to market, and they haven't really made a big splash. Its very likely that they will continue to be far in last in the tablet game. What they need is a really compelling reason to use Windows 8 for a tablet UI. They need something that makes people say "WOW, I want that!" That is what innovation is. All they have now is a tablet UI that is less user friendly, very few apps, and no real reason to purchase it.

Quote:

The complaining about the tablet UI on the desktop seems daft to me, it seems to meld almost perfectly so that you can use it either way, or both ways, and not be any worse off.

Well, for the people who are not bothered by it, that works great for you. Obviously, a very significant number of people DO feel that they are worse off. I'm one of them. The public reception to it has been pretty bad. Even the most ardent supporters seem to recognize that. So, while you can sit here and tell me that it works just fine, I'm going to sit here and tell you it doesn't. But forget about my personal opinion... If we are talking in terms of smart business practices, have a large amount of your user base collectively say "this sucks", is just bad business. If you are going to do something like that, you need to get something in return. If their tablet venture fails, they will have lost a lot of consumer good will.

Quote:

If you just like desktop software, you can pin up to 60 of your favorite desktop apps to the start screen (at my 1650x1080 res), and launch them in 2 clicks. That is a good method in itself, whether you use metro apps or not. Desktop users who complain seem to believe that it must be bad if you can use it with tablet and touch, but that's not some kind of physical law. I use Windows 8 (well 2012 with desktop experience installed) with just a keyboard and mouse and find it more efficient than the start menu of old. The metro apps add value even to a long time desktop user like myself, I pin a few of them like weather, pop sci, mail, etc. and get updates to a potentially vast amount of real time data in one click. Meanwhile, my desktop experience is not dragged down in any way, like you would think if you just read complaints about it.

Well everyone works on their computer differently. Honestly, just the context switching caused by the start menu alone is very disruptive to my work flow... but I'm not going to argue about the features of windows 8 anymore. I will however repeat that if a large amount of customers dislike a product, you are doing it wrong.

I'm surprised you'd even try and argue this, honestly. The concept of forcing a touch centric UI on people who will use a mouse and keyboard serves little purpose. You can't really even make the argument that it was put in there for the benefit of desktop/laptop users. Its not.

Quote:

I have a Surface and I very much enjoy the fact that Surface (and other similar offerings) encompass both desktop and tablet functionality in a single device. At my desk, connected to a larger monitor and keyboard, I can do all the multi-windowed work that I could do in Win7, and when it's time to go elsewhere I pull two cables and take the Surface with me. It can go virtually anywhere I go, in ways that a laptop couldn't. It works quite well in either tablet or laptop "modes" and eliminates all hassles involved with multiple devices (keeping them charged and synced and so on).

Well, tablets do have their uses. Having a device that acts as both a tablet and a laptop is a nice feature for people who'd like to use a tablet. I don't think the problem is that Windows 8 has a touch UI, the problem is that the touch UI is forced on people who aren't using touch. The dual system is a great idea for tablets. Its a very unpopular thing for dekstops though.

Quote:

There are a few teething pains, I admit. You say the Surface Pro is too heavy, but I found that to be a first impression which faded rapidly in actual use. And it's a first generation device; it will only get thinner. There have been moments of confusion between the two interfaces (Metro and legacy desktop) but again they fade with familiarity. If you can think of a cleaner and less jarring way to bridge the gap between mouse-friendly and finger-friendly interfaces, then you should definitely start writing your manifesto - if it's truly better then I'm sure you'll be in great demand very quickly!

Well the weight feeling never goes away if you are also using something lighter on a consistent basis either. The people in our showrooms don't ever "get used to it" when they go home and use an iPad. If anything, it appears the weight difference stands out more.

As far as a less jarring way to do things, a good start would be an option to toggle the new UI off. Use the finger freindly interface, when you need it. Use the desktop when you need it, and give you the ability to run apps in windows. These two small things would have resulted in zero backlash from the community. But like I said, they chose to use the new UI as a trojan horse...

There are actually quite a few applications out there that actually do this. The problems with this is 1) they are not officially supported (so updates might interfere, break, or change behavior)2) Most people will never know they exist.

Again, setting aside my personal preference, it was a dumb move by Microsoft to alienate so many customers..

Certainly opinions differ, and there should be room for that. But these never-ending tirades of hatred are getting old.[/quote]

Well, its hard to say what would have happened if Microsoft did things differently. So far their tablet market has fallen flat though. Its much harder to gain market share when you are this late to market, and they haven't really made a big splash. Its very likely that they will continue to be far in last in the tablet game. What they need is a really compelling reason to use Windows 8 for a tablet UI. They need something that makes people say "WOW, I want that!" That is what innovation is. All they have now is a tablet UI that is less user friendly, very few apps, and no real reason to purchase it.

...

Well, for the people who are not bothered by it, that works great for you. Obviously, a very significant number of people DO feel that they are worse off. I'm one of them. The public reception to it has been pretty bad. Even the most ardent supporters seem to recognize that. So, while you can sit here and tell me that it works just fine, I'm going to sit here and tell you it doesn't. But forget about my personal opinion... If we are talking in terms of smart business practices, have a large amount of your user base collectively say "this sucks", is just bad business. If you are going to do something like that, you need to get something in return. If their tablet venture fails, they will have lost a lot of consumer good will.

...

Well everyone works on their computer differently. Honestly, just the context switching caused by the start menu alone is very disruptive to my work flow... but I'm not going to argue about the features of windows 8 anymore. I will however repeat that if a large amount of customers dislike a product, you are doing it wrong.

OK, well basically, history might serve as a guide here. If MS just abandoned their strategy every time people complained, they would have tossed out Vista and we'd be on XP SP 5 or something. Maybe it will be like Vista, in that it's a sound strategy but people won't appreciate it until it has a little more spit and shine like Vista -> Win 7. I would say ultimately the strategy of staying the course with Vista paid off, in the long run, and we might see the same thing with Win 8 after an update or new version, that stays the course but offers the additional spit and shine the pickier people desire.

Yes, and that was what I was referring to, but it may require something more, possibly. I know it's not an exact analogue, but Vista SP1 fixed a lot of issues, but still people harbored their (imo) ill-founded hate until 7 was released, mostly the same OS with a few UI tweaks, and people were all of a sudden in love, so we'll see.

There may have been some of that, but the overall reception was much more positive than Vista, or 8, that's all I was saying. And to this day, Vista still garners bitter criticisms in forums, while 7 is relatively beloved.

Oh I agree. I'm just pointing out one of the *many* examples of the "win 7 is vista sp1!" arguments.

Those arguments were made almost exclusively by the Technorati. The mainstream both press and users didn't make that argument at all, they either said "this is everything Vista should have been" or pretended Vista didn't exist and said "This is what you should get a new computer for".

I think Vista mainly had driver issues. Vista after SP1 is not bad at all, but it's not 7. You don't have Aero Peek, Aero Snap (both features I use many times a day) and it's missing a couple other things as well. I think 7, or at least a few of its features, should have been given to Vista owners. I think Vista owners got shafted. The OS itself is competent enough, but next to 7 it's just incomplete. For what Vista cost -- it wasn't any cheaper than XP or 2000 -- 7 should have been free. Same generation and all.

When Windows 9 comes out, I'll probably make the same argument for 8 users. I'm seeing a lot of people have grown into and accustomed to 8's differences, but I'm holding out with 7. I'm thinking like ME to XP and Vista to 7, Microsoft will make it right in the next version. It's not that the Start Screen is bad, per se. It's just that Microsoft saw the meteoric rise of the iPhone and assumed everybody wanted that on their computer. And some of us just don't. I think Windows 9 will also have the Start Screen, but will offer you the option to trade it for the Start Menu; basically you'll be able to choose between 8 style and 7 style, like XP has the 2000 option. It looks like crap but it's there. And 9, I think, will have a few other things that, like 7 to Vista, most of us will say, "Gee, this just makes sense, why didn't they do it from the start, in 8?" It's just choice. Having a PC, as opposed to a console or an iDevice, is about choice. Even if Microsoft thinks the Start Screen is the right choice, and hell, even if a majority of Windows users agree, it's important that we have a choice, even the choice to make the decision you or they don't agree with. If I didn't want the choice I'd just get an iPhone or iPad. Ballmer's way or the highway, or Jobs'/Cook's way or the highway... that's not an ecosystem I'm going to pay to get myself locked into. But again, I think Microsoft will make it right with 9.

I hope they will work on a replacement for both the Start Screen and the Start Menu that will scale better to lots of shortcuts. At the very least, when an app (like their very own Visual Studio!) tries to create its own folder in the Win7 start screen, that should be implemented in some way.

As I've said a few times I'm not saying the Start Menu is the greatest possible way to do things. But to me, the Start Screen is not an improvement, but rather the opposite. (And I'm not ignoring the All Apps screen.) That "just use search" is recommended as a solution means that the design of the Start Menu - or the Start Screen - has failed.